Allowed

Jambulingam v. the State Represented

Madras HC19 Nov 2024CRL OP/28569/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge of the Madras High Court granted bail to the petitioner (A15) in Crl.O.P.No.28569 of 2024. He was accused of digital fraud involving impersonation of police and financial cheating. The Court imposed conditional bail with a bond of Rs.15,000 and strict reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail after executing a bond of Rs.15,000 with two sureties and complying with specific reporting and non-absconding conditions.

Jambulingam Vs the State Represented — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.28569 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.28569 of 2024

Jambulingam

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, CCD-I Police Station, Chennai City. (Crime No.259 of 2024).

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS Act, pleased to enlarge the petitioner/A15 on bail, in connection with Crime No.259 of 2024, on the file of the respondent Police.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.G.S.Prabu For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the

¶16

petitioner/A15, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.28569 of 2024

¶19

16.10.2024, seeking bail in Crime No.259 of 2024 registered for the offences under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3) & 340(2) of BNS r/w Section 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that the accused, by impersonating themselves to be the police personnel, had threatened the de facto complainant stating that she is one of the suspects in a money laundering case and put her under pressure for making payment and made her to transfer Rs.4,67,30,000/- to different accounts vide 8 different transactions and cheated her. Hence the case.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, aged about 22 years, is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case as A15. He further submitted that the petitioner is pursuing M.B.A and in part time, he is working in Equitas Bank and he had not involved in any money transaction. He also submitted that the petitioner was not aware that the bank accounts were created to cheat someone. He further submitted that the co-accused has been granted bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.27297 of 2024 dated 12.11.2024. Hence, he prayed for grant of

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.28569 of 2024

¶24

bail to the petitioner stating that the petitioner, who is suffering incarceration from 16.10.2024, is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

¶25

Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, while objecting for grant of bail to the petitioner, submitted that it is a case of digital arrest and the accused, by threatening the de facto complainant, in the guise of police personnel, had cheated her to the tune of Rs.4,67,30,000/-. He further submitted that the petitioner/A15, who is working as a Relationship Manager (Sales) had referred the account holder

¶26

and other suspicious account holders to the sales team of Equitas Bank and opened bank accounts to receive the fraudulent money. He also submitted that the case is under investigation and the involvement of other accused is yet to be identified.

¶27

5. H eard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record including the Counter filed by the respondent Police.

¶28

3/6

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.28569 of 2024

¶31

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the

¶32

case, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also taking note of the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner and the co-accused has been granted bail by this Court, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶33

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties , each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned

¶34

XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and on further conditions that:

¶35

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶36

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 06.30 p.m., until further orders;

¶37

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶38

4/6

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

¶40

Crl.O.P.No.28569 of 2024

¶41

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶42

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions,

¶43

the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

¶44

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

19.11.2024

ham

The XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶49

The Inspector of Police, CCD-I Police Station, Chennai City.

¶50

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶51

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

¶53

5/6

¶54

Crl.O.P.No.28569 of 2024

¶55

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.,J.

¶56

ham

¶57

Crl.O.P.No.28569 of 2024

¶58

19.11.2024

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

Jambulingam v. the State Represented

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jambulingam v. the State Represented

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Murugesan Vs the Inspector of Police

Ayyanar Vs State Rep.by

Pushpalatha Vs R.Kothai

Logesh @ Logeswaran Vs the State Rep by Its

Sasikumar Vs The State by

Ravi Vs State by